Abstract

The work is devoted to the search for the optimal algorithm for implementing the process of promoting knowledge in the educational services market. The «product» of promotion is an educational program. Promotion of products of educational activities could be built along the general line «internal quality assurance of education – reviews of internal stakeholders – external quality assurance of education – reviews of external stakeholders – a business card of an educational product». When applied to an educational program as an object of knowledge marketing, a business card is a set of innovative features that could be used as the basis for implementing a particular strategy. In the frame of the work for describing the process of promoting the educational program abstract-logical method, the method of analogies, and the method of induction-deduction were used. A bibliometric analysis was carried out based on an array of bibliographic data of articles from the Scopus database using the VOSviewer tool to assess the possibility of combining different marketing mix models. The results of the bibliometric analysis show that the marketing mix model applies to the promotion of knowledge (educational program) as a product of the DIKW model. At the same time, the question of choosing a marketing mix strategy or justifying the need to combine these strategies remains open. As part of the work, a link was made between generating the knowledge model and promoting an educational program as a product of the DIKW model. Bibliometric analysis showed that using a single marketing mix strategy currently does not lead to success in product promotion. A combination of different strategy indicators is needed. At the same time, it is essential to establish the degree of significance of each indicator in the overall rating and to screen out (if necessary) individual indicators. A multi-level expert assessment determines the degree of significance of each indicator. Based on the results of this assessment, a specific set of indicators for this educational program and the dominant strategy, if any, are formed. A combined approach for promoting an educational program is developed based on an analysis of individual indicators and a multi-stage expert assessment of internal and external stakeholders.

Keywords: bibliometric analysis, DIKW model, knowledge transfer, marketing mix, strategy, evaluation, expert review, SDG’s.

JEL Classification: M31, O32, O34.

Cite as: Artyukhova, A., Krmela, J., Krmelova, V., & Ospanov, D. (2022). Knowledge Marketing: n(P, C, S, V)’s Mix? Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3, 182-189. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2022.3-16

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Arnett, D. B, & Wittmann, C. M. (2014) Improving marketing success: The role of tacit knowledge exchange between sales and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Artyukhov, A., & Omelyanenko, V. (2021). Methodical Aspects of Innovation Cooperation Processes Educations and R&D Effects Estimations. 11th International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies, 250–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Artyukhov, A., Omelyanenko, V., & Prokopenko, O. (2021a). University Technology Transfer Network Structure Development: Education and Research Quality Issues. TEM Journal, 10(2), 607–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Artyukhov, A., Volk, I., Vasylieva, T., & Lyeonov, S. (2021b). The role of the university in achieving SDGs 4 and 7: a Ukrainian case. E3S Web of Conferences 250, 04006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Baehre, S., O’Dwyer, M., O’Malley, L., & N. Lee (2022). The use of Net Promoter Score (NPS) to predict sales growth: insights from an empirical investigation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Bilan, S., Šuleř, P., Skrynnyk, O., Krajňáková E., & Vasilyeva, T. (2022). Systematic bibliometric review of artificial intelligence technology in organizational management, development, change and culture. Business: Theory and Practice, 23(1), 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Bolisani, E., & Scarso, E. (2012). Knowledge marketing: Issues and prospects. Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management,1, 100–107. [Google Scholar]
8. Chen, L. Y. (2012). A knowledge marketing model: Determinants of organisational resource-based capabilities on e-retail performance. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 9(1), 89–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Diehr, G., & Wilhelm, S. (2017). Knowledge marketing: How can strategic customers be utilised for knowledge marketing in knowledge-intensive SMEs? Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 15, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Field, A. P. (2005). Kendall’s coefficient of concordance. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, 2, 1010-11. [Google Scholar]
12. Hell, P., Nishiyama, H., & Stacho, L. (2020). Hamiltonian cycles in covering graphs of trees. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 282, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Leonov, S. V., Vasilyeva, T. A., & Makarenko, I. O. (2017). Мodern methodical approaches to the evaluation of corporate reporting transparency. Scientific Bulletin of Polissia, 1(2(9)),185-190. Retrieved from [Link]
14. Leonov, S. V., Vasilyeva, T. A., & Shvindina, H. O. (2018). Methodological approach to design the organizational development evaluation system. Scientific Bulletin of Polissia, 2(3(11), 51–56. Retrieved from [Link]
15. Liubchak, V. O., Zuban, Y. O., & Artyukhov, A. E. (2022). Immersive learning technology for ensuring quality education: Ukrainian university case. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3085, 336–354. [Google Scholar]
16. Londhe, B. R. (2014). Marketing Mix for Next Generation Marketing. Procedia Economics and Finance, 11, 335–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Oliveira, M. G., & Machado Toaldo, A.M. (2015). New times, new strategies: proposal for an additional dimension to the 4 P’S for E-commerce dot-com. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management 12(1), 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Ottesen, G. G., & Grønhaug, K. (2004). Barriers to practical use of academic marketing knowledge. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Simakhova, A. O., Artyukhov A. E., & Shmarlouskaya, H. A. (2022). Problematic issues of digitalization of education in Eastern Europe. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3085, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Vasylieva, T. A., Lieonov, S. V., Petrushenko, Y. M., & Vorontsova, A. S. (2017). Investments in the system of lifelong education as an effective factor of socio-economic development. Financial and Credit Activity Problems of Theory and Practice, 2(23), 426–436. [Google Scholar]
21. Wang, Y. (2020). Research on the Effect of 4C + 2S to Customer Perceived Value in Scene Marketing of Clothing Industry in China. Open Journal of Business and Management, 8, 628–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Yarovenko, H., Bilan, Y., Lyeonov, S., & Mentel, G. (2021). Methodology for assessing the risk associated with information and knowledge loss management. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 22(2), 369-387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Yusof, W. S. E. Y. W., Zakaria, O., Zainol, Z., & Ananthan, S. (2018). DIKW Application on Knowledge Based Framework with Situational Awareness. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(6), 1110–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]